Is consent by the client to a fee-sharing agreement sufficient to satisfy former rule 2-200?

Oral consent by the client to the fee-sharing agreement is not sufficient to satisfy former rule 2-200. ( Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 896, 899-903, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502.) "Requiring the clients written consent to fee sharing impresses on the client the importance of his or her consent, and of the right to reject the fee sharing. Additionally, it benefits the attorneys themselves because it ensures that the client will not later claim there was no consent, and it benefits the referring attorney who has additional proof of the existence of the sharing agreement." ( Id . at p. 903, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502.)